Hunters are rocking under the weight of the 800-pound gorilla that wooed them and then hopped on their backs last week. National Rifle Association President Kayne Robinson announced his 4-million-member group is in the process of "propelling hunter rights to the public arena" with the same bull-headed polarizing rhetoric that caused the senior George Bush to drop his NRA membership in 1995. Robinson received polite applause and a good deal of eye-rolling after making the announcement in Spokane to the Outdoor Writers Association of America's annual conference. A day earlier, the same conference erupted in a standing ovation to a speech by Shane Mahoney, a wildlife biologist who trumpeted the urgency for hunters and anglers to join forces with other conservation organizations, such as the Sierra Club, to curb the loss of habitat that threatens the foundation of fishing and hunting activities.

Just a few years ago, OWAA, which has traditionally fawned over the NRA with slobbering enthusiasm, turned down the Defenders of Wildlife request for a forum at the annual conference to appeal for unity on conservation issues. Since then, OWAA's coast-to-coast collection of newspaper, magazine, radio and TV communicators has generally realized that Defenders of Wildlife and most other green groups do not oppose hunting. Indeed, most of them support hunting as a legitimate wildlife conservation tool. But the NRA prefers the us-against-them approach. That strategy has a history of working to the NRA's advantage, but it won't necessarily work in the best interests of sportsmen. Robinson was undeterred by the conservationists' appeal to rally for a common cause. As a footnote to his prepared remarks, he vowed that the NRA would never team with the Sierra Club or its ilk. Robinson waved a Sierra Club publication with a story by Ted Williams, a sportsman and one of the most thorough and insightful modern conservation writers. The story lead-in said, "If only hunters, anglers, and environmentalists would stop taking potshots at each other, they would be an invincible force for wildlands protection." Indisputable. But Robinson condemned the publication because a few NRA darlings were among the several elected officials cited in the story for promoting land-use policies destructive to fish and wildlife. The story pointed out, for example, that Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) raised more than $500,000 in campaign donations from energy, mining and agriculture during his campaign and then went back to Washington, D.C., and introduced a bill that would promote the sale and development of public land managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation. The story praised several Montana hunting groups for venturing beyond the isolated island of gun rights advocacy to expose the legislation and launch a media blitz called "Keep Public Lands in Public Hands." Robinson, however, said the NRA is cautious about criticizing any politician who stands firm for the Second Amendment, no matter how many wetlands he wants to drain or winter ranges he wants to pave.

The NRA continues to blindly advocate "Vote your gun." So narrow. So sad. Robinson did not attend the conference's several panel presentations that featured wildlife experts detailing the grim consequences uncontrolled growth is having on wildlife, particularly in winter ranges, wetlands and riparian areas. Robinson preferred to focus hot-buttons rather than real issues, lobbing half-truths and innuendo much like the radio talk show hosts who have commandeered public airwaves. He cited "government policy" as a key foe to the future of hunting. He acknowledged many policies that increase hunting regulations are supported by hunters themselves. But he chastised sportsmen who go to meetings and comment on proposals and called them "the fancy hunters." Really. He said the "fancy hunters" are accomplices to government bureaucracy that make hunting too complicated for "the guy down at the Texaco station." If Robinson were to attend a public meeting on hunting regulations, he'd see the participants are from all economic levels, from the Texaco station to the medical building. Robinson demeans Joe Average by suggesting he's too dumb to read the regulations and understand the need for rules to increase hunting opportunity while ensuring the viability of wildlife populations. Robinson said government is working with anti-hunting groups "to close millions of acres of public land to hunting." Pressed for examples, he cited the roadless area initiative enacted by President Bill Clinton. Robinson contended that closing roads and preventing new roads on public lands deprives the average sportsman of a place to hunt. By that, he suggests that Joe Average can't get out of his rig and walk or ride a horse and appreciate that most of the best places to find trophy big-game are beyond the reach of a road.

Hunters need to see the NRA's anti-government, anti-environmental ploy for what it is. With Republicans in control of Washington, the NRA has few fat targets to villainize in tried-and-true propaganda campaigns that fire up existing members, recruit new members and extract money from all of their wallets. The NRA's campaign to "propel hunter rights into the public arena" stinks of opportunism. Robinson is trying to recruit uninformed hunters with the same big talk and promises a pimp uses to lure vulnerable girls into his realm. Some 12-15 million American hunters are not NRA members, and this is no time for them to change their minds. Now, more than ever, a sportsman who is not an environmentalist is a fool.

Original Article (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sports/story.asp?ID=13409)

Of course an environmentalist without access to centerfire ammunition capable of penetrating a Level IIA bullet resistant vest is either a fool or a bowhunter.

Maybe the NRA doesn't get it on the environment. Certain hunters certainly don't get it yet that they own sniper rifles that the Democrats will turn their attention to someday, even if they ban them "accidentally" through vague descriptions, or through bankrupting makers with John Edwards' friends.

Some 12-15 million American hunters are not NRA members, and this is no time for them to change their minds.

I guess we've still got some work to do.

F4GIB

July 6, 2004, 10:25 PM

The men at Lexington and Concord DID "vote their guns."

If every hunter was a member of the NRA, Congress would do WHATEVER those hunters asked them to do. As long as hunters are seduced into voting on anything other than their guns, habitat, guns, and game will continue to disappear.

See this thread for a real-world example: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90175

The only voter that makes a difference is the SINGLE-ISSUE voter. Ask any politician.

Hawkmoon

July 6, 2004, 11:12 PM

Lemme see if I understand this:

"Vote your gun" is narrow-minded.

But "Vote your roadless wilderness initiative even if there are roads in the roadless wilderness" is open-minded and inclusive?

Got it! :banghead:

Leatherneck

July 7, 2004, 07:28 AM

Landers' condescending tone and trite characterizations are typical of the sneering anti-freedom left. It's all about MY agenda and not yours. Feh.

TC
TFL Survivor

ravinraven

July 7, 2004, 08:44 AM

What great examples these folks are of how NOT to be. Leatherneck has it right. Their anti-liberty agenda is everything. Liberty is nothing. That's why they are opposed to the Iraq war. Liberty spread a bit. Or at least it's trying to. That's why they hate Bush. He ain't perfect in the pro-liberty department. But he's so far ahead of whatever the dems have. Now they have sKerry the hipocritical "veteran" and Edwards who has made millions ripping off the American manufacturing base.

Folks. We are going to take a giant IQ test this fall. Be ready!

Who would Bin Laden vote for?

rr

whoami

July 7, 2004, 09:15 AM

Oh....my.....god......the NRA takes a 'vote you guns' line. Who the hell do they think they are, the National RIFLE Association? Sheesh....

grnzbra

July 7, 2004, 03:23 PM

It sounds like it's time for all of us whose guns are on the chopping block to get membership packets from PETA.

Michigander

July 7, 2004, 06:29 PM

senior George Bush [dropped] his NRA membership in 1995.

And with that, I have finally made up my mind to renew my NRA membership for another year. I certainly do not want to be like Bush!

Is Jr. a member of the NRA, btw?

Shooter973

July 7, 2004, 06:45 PM

Feel free to call me Narrow Minded. With out the protections of the 2nd Amendment we wouldn't have any Rights or Freedom left. Yep I'm "Narrow Minded". :cuss:

carpettbaggerr

July 7, 2004, 08:45 PM

Give him some more paragraphs --I still can't read it

EghtySx

July 7, 2004, 08:49 PM

This has been said many times. Guess it may need to be said again...

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE GUNS!!!

Taking a population's guns never has been and never will be about the guns. It is purely about subjugation. Guns are the first step in taking your liberites away.

Highland Ranger

July 7, 2004, 09:05 PM

I'll add to that . . . .

ITS NOT ABOUT HUNTING OR CONSERVATION EITHER!

G1FAL

July 7, 2004, 10:04 PM

"propelling hunter rights to the public arena"

Gee, how about propelling the right to keep and bear arms, as GUARANTEED, not granted, under the 2nd Amendment?

I could almost care about hunters. Way I see it, hunters are the PROBLEM. Hunters are the reason why the NRA is so willing to compromise away everything that isnt a deer rifle or a duck shotgun. Because as long as their deer rifle or duck gun is safe, the hunters dont care squat about the rest of us.

Oh, how nice it would be if the Supreme Court bumped their heads and handed down a ruling that the ONLY firearms protected by the 2nd were those suitable for militia duty, i.e., full-autos and mag-fed semi-autos, as well as autoloading pistols and things currently classified as Destructive Devices. Wouldnt those duck hunters who want to 'compromise' away MY AK's and FAL's be in a world of drek then! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, I would laugh so hard I'd probably end up with tears running down my face and pee running down my leg. Then I'd probably have to go pick up a big bag of popcorn and sit outside the local PD, waving my AK, cheering, and making all kinds of catcalls and smart remarks, as all the hunters turned in their prized deer and duck guns.

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting, or 'sporting purposes', and little to do with even self-defense. Its about keeping the .gov honest, and being able to take the .gov back from a bunch of dishonest scumbags. Those other things are just pleasant side-effects. If it had been about hunting from the beginning, it would have been worded differently, like "The People shall have the right to hunt ducks, deer, pheasants, moose, elk, grouse, antelope, and all other game common to this country", or something like that. They didnt.

Next time the anti's want to push a ban thru, a whole bunch of gun owners should try and hop on board and turn the ban into something like a ban on bolt or lever-action rifles of a non-military nature/history, or shotguns with a capacity of less than 5 rounds. Something that will drive the hunters right up the friggin wall. Stick it to them the way they been stickin it to us.

wingedmonkey

July 8, 2004, 01:35 PM

Is Jr. a member of the NRA, btw?

He is not a member. Most politicians aren't and I think Bush 41 only joined for political reasons shortly before running for President.

Having said that, this President is probably the only President in my life time who has sat down with the major sportsmen organizations (both hunting and fishing) on two separate occassions.

I don't know what these people are thinking. The Sierra Club could care less whether my .30-30 ammo gets banned. I'm just as concerned about uncontrolled growth as Landers but controlling growth is going to do me little good if I don't have a gun to go out and use in that protected habitat.

Sportsmen for Bush (http://www.vasportsmen.org)

Gun Raffle (http://www.geocities.com/rmfnra/raffle.html)

DevilDog

July 8, 2004, 01:43 PM

I could almost care about hunters. Way I see it, hunters are the PROBLEM. Hunters are the reason why the NRA is so willing to compromise away everything that isnt a deer rifle or a duck shotgun. Because as long as their deer rifle or duck gun is safe, the hunters dont care squat about the rest of us.

Well, I'm a hunter... and yet I couldn't agree more. It ain't 'bout huntin'! But I am more of a highpower competitor, and even more of a pro-RKBA.

Throw the trap/skeet only crowd into that group too (as much as I hate to generalize).

I will consider other issues when I vote if and when the 2nd amendment gets just half the respect and "hands-off" from the courts as the 1st amendment.

Confession part - I do put the war on terror as a higher priority. Luckily I do not have to compromise one for the other too much in my voting.

mountaindrew

July 8, 2004, 01:56 PM

WOW! I am really supprized at how you guys are reacting! It seem that there are a lot of people who have a real problem with making aliances, or the idea of cooperation. Wouldent it be worth it to side with the Sierra Club agianst logging companies, for instance if they would agree to support second amendment rights? You can never have too many friends, and if the issues dont conflict ( I dont remember the last time I felt sympathy for a giant oil company ) than it would be In our best interest to ally with other interst groups to support issues we can agree on.

GSB

July 8, 2004, 03:25 PM

Oh, how nice it would be if the Supreme Court bumped their heads and handed down a ruling that the ONLY firearms protected by the 2nd were those suitable for militia duty, i.e., full-autos and mag-fed semi-autos, as well as autoloading pistols and things currently classified as Destructive Devices

Well, they already did that once, but everyone has ignored it.

TallPine

July 8, 2004, 03:54 PM

Hey, my bolt action sniper rifle has a military purpose, too :neener:

G1FAL

July 9, 2004, 12:25 AM

Well, they already did that once, but everyone has ignored it.

Yes, they did, sort of.

They said that the .gov had the right to regulate and tax full-autos and rifles/shotguns with a short barrel. And look where that ended us up.

cracked butt

July 9, 2004, 02:42 AM

I'm a hunter, and am appalled by the lack of concern over gun ownership amid other hunters. There are many who care more about a weekend or two of drinking with their buddies, and sitting in the woods for a few hours than whether or not their rifle might be confiscated. There is a certain bowhunting publication that I no longer subscribe to as one of the authors of the magazine wrote about how he disapproves of hunting with a rifle.:barf:

The Sierra club deserves noone's respect. They only take on environmental issues if it doesn't step on the toes of other leftists. Currently, there is a man in a city near me that is the head of the city's sewerage district which has dumped billions of gallons of raw sewage into lake michigan already this year, and has done so for at least the past 5 years. This man is also a Lawyer for the Sierra club who goes after 'big businesses' if they should accidentally have an emission of any kind.

The Sierra club is nothing but the Jesse Jackson of the environmental world- they go where they can yell the loudest and where the money is.

GSB

July 9, 2004, 07:47 AM

Yes, they did, sort of. They said that the .gov had the right to regulate and tax full-autos and rifles/shotguns with a short barrel. And look where that ended us up.

In Miller they said that a sawed off shotgun was not protected under the 2nd Amendment because it was not shown to have military utility ("not demonstrated" being different, of course, from "not having"). So indirectly, they DID say that only military firearms are protected under the 2nd, but I think no one has subesequently wanted to take that logic to its conclusion so they ignore that part of the ruling. It is to that logic which I was referring specifically.

mountainclmbr

July 9, 2004, 09:47 PM

Call me narrow minded, but the canary is the safety indicator to miners as gun rights is the safety indicator to freedom. Should I now go driving without my seat belt because DOT is in charge????

Jeff

July 9, 2004, 10:22 PM

Next time you get into an argument with a hunter who doesn't like those "scary black plastic guns," ask him what group of gun owners in the country- once you have removed suicides and righteous self defense- is responsible for the most amount of gun-related deaths. Hunters, of course.

Actually, I am not entirely sure about this, but haven't hunters accidently shot and killed more people than any other one subset or group of legal gunowners?

Does anyone have any stats on this?

cracked butt

July 10, 2004, 10:02 PM

Actually, I am not entirely sure about this, but haven't hunters accidently shot and killed more people than any other one subset or group of legal gunowners?

Actually that's pretty doubtful, at least these days when hunter safety courses are mandatory. In my state, roughly 750,000 hunters take to the woods at the same time for gun deer hunting, and only 2 or 3 get shot every year- most are self inflicted with maybe 1 accidental shooting of another hunter. When you consider how many people this is, how many shots are being fired outside of a shooting range environment, this level of gun safety is pretty darn good.

AZRickD

July 10, 2004, 10:17 PM

the same conference erupted in a standing ovation to a speech by Shane Mahoney, a wildlife biologist who trumpeted the urgency for hunters and anglers to join forces with other conservation organizations, such as the Sierra Club, to curb the loss of habitat that threatens the foundation of fishing and hunting activities.
As if the Sierra Club would support people going into these habitats, let alone hunters.

Just a bunch of "sportsmen" who think the 2A encompasses little more than a sporting goods debate.